Institutional racism in the police?

Sorry 705 = 75%, I can't do two things at once anymore!

If people ask questions about something seeking some sort of conflict they shouldn't be surprised if the answer isn't quite what they were aiming for.

Well we don’t know yet do we about the windows or what was actually said to them when the police approached the car. I’m quite happy to wait for further information from an independent source.

Anniebach As someone else said, it would be virtually impossible to have two candidates with exactly the same qualifications, experience and ability to articulate in writing their strengths and weaknesses.

However, I say for about the tenth time, that, in the course of a piece of research relating to employment, an experiment was carried out whereby "imaginary" applicants applied for jobs that had been advertised. Researchers sent out two cvs in response -both identical in their contents, except for their surname. One cv had a typically English surname and the other had an obviously non-European surname. Despite the fact that in every other respect the cvs were identical, the applicants with the English surname were called back for interview at almost twice the rate as those with the non-European surnames.

I expect there may be difficulties determining which of two excellent applicants should be offered a job. However, that does not detract from the fact that there is proven bias towards candidates who are perceived to be white Europeans. It cannot be mere coincidence that one group receives an invitation for interview at almost twice the rate of the other group.

When it comes to the subject of who is successful at interview, that is a bit more tricky but, as Madgran says, an interviewer or panel of interviewers should have a properly laid down procedure to ensure that each candidate is asked the same questions and is assessed according to set criteria.

Anyway, if you routinely have far less chance of being called for interview, you obviously have far less chance of getting the jobs you apply for, however good or bad your interview technique might be.

Eloethan that was my link.

i remember seeing a tv programme about brass band competitions.
male soloists and majority bands nearly always won all the prizes. over many years. proving to their supporters that women were not naturally suited to the exertions/ demands of brass bands, and had only been allowed in because of the law.
after some discussion, one year they held the competitions in such a way that the judges couldn't see who was playing.
many women got top prizes. funny that.

Yes, I thought it probably was suzie but I have been saying it for a week or so now - and on past threads - and yet still people ignore what has been posted and continue to question whether there is systemic discrimination (and particularly racial discrimination) in the employment market.

As an employer you choose who you think will do the job best, it’s not just qualifications or experience, interpersonal skills, enthusiasm and how well they will fit in with the team.

Choosing the wrong person that does not fit in is very expensive. Or you might want a manager to sort out a existing underperforming team, so a forceful personality would be prime.

That’s an old argument. When names, DoB, addresses, etc are removed from application forms by HR and managers just given the details of experience, qualifications, etc.. you get a much better cross section short listed.

David the classic excuse for discrimination at worst and unconscious bias at best.

I agree with David

Susie
You simply can’t choose just on qualifications, that is really naive.

David perhaps you’d do me the courtesy of pointing out where I said you choose solely on qualifications? Are you a man btw?

The IOPC is to conduct an enquiry into racial bias.

I have been reading the various incidents over the past few months of innocent people being stopped, handcuffed, arrested and tasers

Shocking

It’s pretty naive of you to think you can criticise me without reading my posts properly and not get called out on it.

Anyway, if you routinely have far less chance of being called for interview, you obviously have far less chance of getting the jobs you apply for, however good or bad your interview technique might be.

Yes, I thought it probably was suzie but I have been saying it for a week or so now - and on past threads - and yet still people ignore what has been posted and continue to question whether there is systemic discrimination (and particularly racial discrimination) in the employment market.

Yes Eleothan, I seem to have been repeating myself rather a lot! [hmmm]

Yes Eleothan, I seem to have been repeating myself rather a lot! [hmmm]

That was meant to say .."like you Eleothan"

Suzie

Yes I am man and I too have interviewed many job applicants, diversity has never been a criteria in selection, nor has wether a candidate is currently employed. Around 80% successful applicants have been female, most of them stayed for several years some much longer which is fine, changing jobs after 3 months is not good.

The junior level would be just GCSEs, graduates generally had 2/2 Degrees it was the work experience that varied a lot. Some had obviously partied their way through Uni, some had really worked hard.

Can they do the job and are they going to fit in with the rest of the staff is by far the most important thing. I haven't always got it right, there was one graduate that upset everyone, that aside most were happy and stayed several years

David stop mansplaining.

Suziewoozie, is he really mansplaining ? On this occasion I disagree with you I think he is just recounting his experience

David has it spot on, why is that mansplaining, that’s another daft term. How he put it is how it is in business, it has to be, that is just fact. Why is it if a man says something you don’t agree with make it wrong, it might not be your view on the subject, it’s what’s right not whom.

I dont understand what peoples individual experience of recruitment has to do with anything to be honest.

Yes he’s mansplaining because I called him out on his totally false post about me and rather than apologising for that, he launched into a post directed at me with information that Iam fully aware of. It’s mansplaining because not only was he too male to read my posts properly, but he thought I needed the benefit of his male wisdom in the recruitment and appointment process. It’s not about the content of his post but why he thought it necessary to actually post it.

Well actually, if we're being completely fair and non biased to everyone, irrespective of race or gender, it wasn't really necessary to ask David whether he was a man, was it? His opinions and experiences are as valid, even if you disagree with them, no matter what his gender is, wouldn't you say?

Davidhs

Suzie

Yes I am man and I too have interviewed many job applicants, diversity has never been a criteria in selection, nor has wether a candidate is currently employed. Around 80% successful applicants have been female, most of them stayed for several years some much longer which is fine, changing jobs after 3 months is not good.

The junior level would be just GCSEs, graduates generally had 2/2 Degrees it was the work experience that varied a lot. Some had obviously partied their way through Uni, some had really worked hard.

Can they do the job and are they going to fit in with the rest of the staff is by far the most important thing. I haven't always got it right, there was one graduate that upset everyone, that aside most were happy and stayed several years

That sounds fair enough David

I remember people with a PhD applying for jobs which only required 'A ' levels. One had a level of persistence which was admirable but the reasons for applying were odd.